ILNews

Opinions Nov. 16, 2012

November 16, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marybeth Lebo v. State of Indiana
46A05-1202-CR-104
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s judgment in denying motion to dismiss charges of failure to report child abuse or neglect. Lebo argued the charges were not permissible because they came after the statute of limitations had passed but the COA disagreed, finding the Legislature’s intent was to make the failure to report a continuing offense. Otherwise, the court stated, the duty to report would be limited to the day on which the individual comes to believe abuse is taking place.

The Marling Family Trust v. Allstate Ins. Company
49A02-1203-CT-186
Civil tort/trust. Reverses the trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Allstate and remands to determine whether the loss is covered under an insurance policy. The trust purchased a house at sheriff’s sale after a foreclosure but had established an equitable lien in policy proceeds under an existing homeowner’s policy and therefore was entitled to receive funds from the policy in the event of an insured loss, the appellate court held.

Kohl's Indiana, L.P. and Kohl's Dept. Store, Inc. v. Dennis Owens, et al.
82A05-1203-PL-103
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Area Plan Commission and the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County, holding that neither body accepted a common obligation to complete the project to build a Kohl’s department store on the west side of Evansville, and that Kohl’s cannot recover on a theory implied in law because a contract with the Board of Commissioners required Kohl’s to complete public infrastructure improvements at its expense.

Sharmain J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1204-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms conviction of illegal possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Roosevelt D. Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1205-PC-375
Post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Mattie A. Tedrow and Mary L. Pierson v. Coyeville Belcher as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Everett D. Belcher, Jr.; and Lynn R. Belcher (NFP)
59A01-1204-EU-196
Estate/unsupervised. Affirms trial court decision to uphold the will of Tedrow and Belcher’s father.

William Emry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A03-1204-CR-274
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

BCC Products, Inc. and Roger Brunette, Jr. v. Roger Brunette, Sr., and Pauline Brunette (NFP)
41A01-1201-CC-28
Collections. Affirms trial court decision in favor of defendants.

Albert Lindsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-333
Criminal. Affirms conviction and enhancement of a count of trespassing from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony.

Bernard Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1203-CR-104
Criminal. Affirms six-year sentence for Class C felony criminal confinement.

Jerry Kaiser, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1203-CR-124
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of methamphetamine.

Michael Ramos v. Robertson's Apartments (NFP)
71A03-1203-SC-107
Small claims. Affirms trial court denial of request for appointment of guardian ad litem and request for damages in excess of the small claims jurisdictional maximum.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT